Saturday, April 30, 2011

Mr. Layton cut his political teeth on the streets of Montreal at the height of the separatist movement in 1970. He was a member of the Front d’Action Politique (FRAP), a left-wing, grassroots municipal party opposed to autocratic mayor Jean Drapeau. FRAP went so far as to endorse the FLQ manifesto, though it did object to the FLQ’s tactics. You know, the whole terrorism thing.

Mr. Layton, too, was appalled by the violence. But he attributes his NDP awakening to Pierre Trudeau’s decision to send in the tanks — something he was “inclined to go along with” until Tommy Douglas protested on behalf of Quebecers’ civil liberties. “I said to myself, that’s a very unpopular position this NDP leader is taking,” Mr. Layton wrote in his 2004 book, Speaking Out. “Still, as I listened to his powerful arguments and his brilliant capacity to deliver them, I realized that this unpopular stance was right.”But it’s not just that Mr. Layton has always understood Quebec, and had mingled with its nationalists and radicals. As recently as 2003, as Michel Vastel reported in L’Actualité, Mr. Layton was deliberately gladhanding amongst Bloc- and Parti Québécois-friendly organizations, and developing the hybrid nationalist/federalist rhetoric that Canadians now hear on the campaign trail.A party obsessed with minority rights now supports extending Bill 101 language laws to cover workers in Quebec under federal jurisdiction. A staunchly centralist party now supports devolving powers to Quebec. Mr. Layton’s support for the Clarity Act has never been warmer than tepid; of late, he’s been declaring nothing stronger than a general preference for a “No” vote in a referendum.

and this:

Centrist, he was not. In 1983, he endorsed a socialist manifesto put forward by the New Democrats’ left caucus, which called for “public ownership of the decisive sectors of the economy”; “massive public works programs and a shorter work week for the same take-home pay”; “free, universal access to all levels of education from day care to university”; and “immediate withdrawal from NATO … and NORAD.”As a councillor, he criticized police raids on gay bathhouses. As chair of the Board of Health, he took up the AIDS cause. He opposed the city’s Olympic bid, spending taxpayer money on what would eventually become SkyDome, and commercial developments in the downtown railway lands that, he said, would benefit fat cat developers. (“People are tired of glitzy condos, fancy domes and more limousines,” he said in 1988.) He was against Sunday shopping, because 1980s society provided more than a week’s worth of crass commercialism in six days.Mr. Layton was not above some pointless left-wing symbolism. He wanted to make Toronto “gun-free.” He insisted the city adopt a nuclear non-proliferation stance, and was chairman of the city’s Peace Committee. In 1989, he supported a move to have Toronto adopt Volgograd as a twin city — and responded to critics at a City Council meeting by comparing Soviet human rights abuses to those perpetrated by Canada against aboriginals. Some in attendance suggested he move to Russia.

How can anyone want this man running this country? I certainly do not! This man is DANGEROUS! A radical quasi-separatist it seems who wants to spend us into oblivion and destroy Canada in the process.

JACK LAYTON MUST NOT BE ALLOWED ANYWHERE NEAR THE REINS OF POWER!!!! DON"T LET THAT SMILE FOOL YOU!!!

Think long and hard. The only way to do that since the Liberals are sinking ship is to VOTE FOR A CONSERVATIVE MAJORITY ON MAY 2!!!!!!

Friday, April 29, 2011

I believe common sense Blue Liberals should vote for a Conservative majority. . Here's why In recent weeks it seems like the Orange Crush is crushing the Big Red Tent leaving it almost impotent. The Orange Crush NDP overtaking the Libs could actually end up governing. That should alarm Blue Liberals. Even if Libs end up being part of a coalition. It will be Jack Layton and the NDP at the mercy of the Bloc who will be calling the shots. The NDP platform if implemented would devastate the economy and open the door to a real national unity crisis that create such instability we might not ever recover. I believe these Liberals love their country and do not want to see it destroyed. A Conservative majority would continue with our economic recovery and offer stability.

Secondly a Conservative majority would give the Liberal party four years to rebuild to be a real contender again. It would actually be healthy for Liberals. They could develop new ideas put them into policy, find a strong credible leader, and create a solid fund raising mechanism.

I'm appealing to those fair minded Blue Liberals to put the country first and at least this time and vote for a stable Conservative majority. You are good and sensible people. Please think hard and long before casting that ballot. The fate country is in your hands. Stephen Harper is not the bogeyman. He's not going turn Canada into a Theocracy. He's not going reverse a woman freedom to choose or reverse gay marriage. He's done a pretty good job in sheltering us from the great recession and only has the good of the country at heart. Jack Layton will turn us back big time! Lastly remember this is not Canadian Idol!

Oh,it seems like Jack has a hidden agenda. Jack has been saying he would open up the constitution to allow Quebec to be a part of it. Low and behold it seems that the reason he wants to open up the constitution is so that he can implement his job killing, economy kneecapping cap and trade program because with out opening the constitution up, cap and trade is apparently unconstitutional. It would also break up the country at the same time.

A carbon quota regime would operate much the same way as does our national dairy quota regime, except Canada’s dairy quota limits only our combined milk, butterfat and cheese production, imports and sales. Under the single umbrella of the national carbon quota regime, a national commission will limit and politicize Canadians’ rights to produce, import, consume or export fossil-fuel derived energy, building products (cement, aluminum, iron and steel, wallboard and other pulp and paper-based products, etc.), fertilizers, industrial chemicals, grains and beef.The existence of such a commission will eviscerate the powers assigned to the provinces in our current Constitution, forever.For this reason, the federal government imposition of cap and trade regulation without the full support and prior approval of all of the covered provinces is most likely unconstitutional. The Liberals and NDP promise to impose such a quota system over provincial markets if, with or without Bloc support, they hold sway over the House of Commons.This would inevitably throw Canada into a protracted, costly and economically damaging constitutional crisis from which, I am afraid, the nation might never recover. Of course, this is also why it would make perfect sense for the Bloc to support any proposed federal cap and trade regulation.

**************************************

The commitment to a federal carbon quota regime in both the Liberal and NDP election platforms presents almost unprecedented danger to Canadian unity. And, yes, the Bloc and their friends in the PQ must love it.

There you have it. We would be in such a mess to likes that we have never seen before and probably never recover from.
This cannot be allowed to happen.Everything we buy will go up dramatically in price. The country will be in turmoil.
From my heart I plead with my fellow Canadians, please, please, think hard and long before you cast that ballot. This country is about to be destroyed if Jack Layton is allowed anywhere near the reins of power.
Please, there is not much time left. Inform your friends,neighbors, relatives, co-workers. Spread word!
Unless we vote for a Conservative majority, we will quickly see Canada go down the tubes.

Thursday, April 28, 2011

Jack Layton could very well become PM next week. For Canada it would be a travesty. Jack would transfer the wealth. He would shut down the oil sands, raise the corporate tax rate up to 19%, impose a job killing carbon tax. Basically he would rape western Canada and give the proceeds to Quebec and special interest groups. It would cause economic chaos. Look what has happened in the US with President Obama. That would happen here too.

In fact the whole country would suffer in more ways than one. We would go further into debt and deficit that would bankrupt the country. Any province who has had an NDP government knows what it's like. It's been a disaster. With Jack Layton at the helm it would be a disaster all over the country.

In order to stay in power Jack would give Quebec the moon and force all federal public employees to speak French that includes the Supreme Court Justices. Well qualified individuals namely from the west would most likely be excluded.

Many westerners will not want see their province be raped by likes of the socialists and go down the tubes to spread the wealth especially to Quebec. They've gotten enough already.

If Canadians don't WAKE UP, I believe you will see western separatism rise up like you've never seen before . Unlike Quebec that uses it just as a threat for blackmail, western Canada namely Alberta would actually act. There will a national unity crisis. Even the PQ in Quebec said just a couple of weeks ago first they want to see a weak government in Ottawa, then they would win the provincial election, then referendum.

As a western Canadian from Alberta, I cannot sit idly by and allow this to happen. We don't have to end up with that kind of a situation. there is still time left so get out there and get that Conservative majority to prevent a catastrophe.

Unity crisis, economic disaster, our military being gutted etc. Is that what you want?

PM Harper and his government have done a good job the last five years. We are the envy of the world why spoil that? Even the Globe and Mail usually Harper Conservative hating paper is admitting that Stephen Harper is the man for the job and has endorsed the Conservatives.

CANADA WAKE UP!!!!! Because come the morning of May 3 you may wake up to something you might not like.

Monday, April 25, 2011

Well it looks like we're into the last stretch of what seems like a very long election campaign. One week to go before we go to polls. I'll be glad when it's over. I thought I would remind you of a couple of things to chew on.

In the last five years of a minority Conservative government with PM Stephen Harper at the helm, they've gotten quite a few accomplishments under their belt even with all the obstacles. Sandy from Cruxofthematter has done such an awesome job putting these together. Just think about all that could be done with a majority.

Don't forget too that if the Conservatives fall shy of a majority next week there will most likely be a coalition of the Liberals,NDP,and the Bloc with either Jack Layton or Michael Ignatieff at the helm. Policies that they would bring in would do Canada in.

Weigh everything carefully. Don't take anything for granted. To fellow Conservatives, make sure you all go out and do what you can to help your local candidate. There is still much work to do, it's not over yet. Above all go out and exercise your right to vote.

Saturday, April 23, 2011

How do you like the sound of that? It could happen you know. With the Libs tanking and the NDP surging and if the Conservatives fall just short of a majority, you could have Jack Layton move into 24 Sussex as the head of a coalition of the losers. Here's a just a small taste of what that could be like.

According to Jack Mintz, one of North America’s pre-eminent economists, Layton’s tax hike plan would be devastating to Canada’s fragile economic recovery.Mintz, director of the Palmer Chair at the School of Public Policy at the University of Calgary, says raising corporate taxes to 19.5 per cent would cost Canada about $75 billion in lost capital expenditures and a whopping 300,000 jobs. But that’s not all.

“By raising corporate tax rates, you’re not only hurting capital investments and jobs, but you’re also hurting technological advancement,” in terms of investment into new machines, research and, therefore, productivity.Layton, who clearly detests big business, says he’ll cut small business taxes instead.“Despite all the rhetoric,” explains Mintz, “studies show that lowering the small business tax rate encourages a lot of new small businesses to be formed, partly because people are avoiding personal income tax, but actually, there’s very little growth of the small firms.”

Yup, that would tank our economy and that's not even figuring in cap and trade and Bloc mail.

Layton wrongly believes that raising corporate taxes will give him more revenue so he can spend, spend, spend on lots of big, new, shiny social programs. And, of course, to stay in power and woo all those Quebec voters, Layton has already promised the mayor of Quebec City some $25 billion in projects like a new professional hockey arena, a tramway and a high-speed rail line between Quebec City and Windsor, Ont. Ignatieff has promised the same. The separatist blackmailing is just beginning and the coalition hasn’t even been formed yet!Layton has also vowed to impose a moratorium on oilsands growth and bring in a cap-and-trade system on greenhouse gas emissions, which will devastate Alberta, the engine of Canada’s economy. Layton is a likable fella and he’s run a good campaign, but that doesn’t mean he should be leader of the Opposition or, heaven forbid, prime minister. It’s not likely he will gain the keys to the PM’s official residence, but if he did, the speed at which he will destroy our economy will leave us all gasping.

How do you like that? Plus there would be instability in the coalition, which would cause instability in the markets and generally in our economy. Why take the chance? I think I'll go for PM Stephen Harper and the Conservatives who have over the past five years even with all the obstacles they've had to endure have provided stability, steered us through a very bad recession very well in that we are the envy of the world and if returned to office with a majority would provide the right conditions for Canada to prosper and flourish even more.

Are the Conservatives perfect? No but think of of the alternative. The coalition of the losers with PM Jack Layton with economic chaos and instability that would turn Canada into a third world banana republic or a Conservative majority with PM Stephen Harper at the helm with stability and prosperity. Those are your choices folks.

So there you go. If you are of the mind to stop Stephen Harper and the Conservatives, don’t buy into the Liberal rhetoric that a vote for the NDP is a wasted vote. Seats won by the Liberal Party will be combined with seats won by the NDP after the election is over. Liberal seat, NDP seat — no difference.After that, the platforms will be combined as well. Whatever you think you were voting for, forget about it. The Liberal platform will be put on the table along with the NDP platform, subject to horse-trading as Michael Ignatieff figures out what price he’ll have to pay for Jack Layton’s support.And talking about paying, in all likelihood the combined seat count of the Liberals-NDP coalition twosome will not be larger than the Conservative caucus, so the Bloc Quebecois will have to be on board with this. And they won’t come cheap.On the one hand there will be demands for great gobs of money for Quebec and Quebec only. Some of the demands will be do-able, in the sense that the money could be found at the expense of spending elsewhere in Canada. Other Bloc demands will be deliberately unrealistic, allowing the Bloc to snipe at the Liberal-NDP team as being unresponsive to Quebec’s legitimate demands. All just in time for the election of the Parti Quebecois in the next Quebec provincial election.Look for the Bloc Quebecois to veto any action by the Liberal-NDP partnership that could improve relations between Ottawa and Quebec, both to further sovereignty, and just for the sheer spiteful enjoyment of it.Don’t forget the mischief the Bloc could get up to outside of Quebec. Supporting the Muskrat Falls project with loan guarantees? You can kiss that goodbye. Those guarantees will be converted into loan guarantees for arenas in Quebec (where the national anthem will never be heard).Look for the Liberal-NDP cohabitation to put up with the Bloc if that’s what it takes to protect their grip on office, especially if polls show Canadians furious at the situation. After the coalition duo is formed, an election would be sheer suicide.

Is that what you really want? Mike and Jack beholding to Gilles? Chaos,instability,uncertainty? No thank you! The ONLY way to stop this travesty is to elect a Conservative majority on May 2.

Tuesday, April 19, 2011

Liberals fear-mongering saying Stephen Harper will gut health care yada,yada,yada. Stephen Harper on the other hand is warning of a coalition with the Liberals and NDP with the Bloc calling the shots which would most likely cause a unity crisis.Kelly McParland aptly points out all the fear mongering.

The Liberals release a campaign ad accusing Stephen Harper of trying to seize “absolute power.”Michael Ignatieff campaigns with former prime minister Paul Martin, who sends out a fundraising letter claiming the Tories will destroy health care. “The future of health care hangs in the balance … there are just 14 short days remaining to save our cherished universal health care system,” he says.Liberals warn that Mr. Harper is “open to American style private for-profit health care.” Vote for the Conservatives and he’ll gut the system and make everyone pay for their check-ups.So what’s that tell you? Well, it tells the Toronto Star that the Tories are using “cynical scare tactics” in their campaign.Uh, yeah.

Even though our health care system is expensive and needs reform, PM Harper is not going to gut it. Besides delivery of health care is provincial jurisdiction. At least the new Sun News has started a discussion on the issue. Let's hope our politicians take note and take measures to change things. The way it is right now is actually unsustainable.

Right now though, I'd be more concerned about a coalition in which the Bloc is holding the real power.

Monday, April 18, 2011

Quebecers should think long and hard about who they want to send to Ottawa. It's been clear that the Bloc and their provincial counterparts the PQ want a weak federal government so they can go forward towards their plan of tearing the country up.

The election could produce a Bloc-friendly result in a number of ways. For example, the Bloc could win 60 seats, the Liberals 58 seats, the NDP 40 seats and the Conservatives 150 seats, five short of a majority. The result would surely provoke the greatest political crisis in this country since 1926, when the governor-general (Lord Byng) refused Liberal prime minister Mackenzie King’s request that he dissolve Parliament and call an election, insisting that Conservative leader Arthur Meighen, the leader of the Official Opposition, be invited first to form a government.If Mr. Duceppe were the leader of the Official Opposition, the Governor-General would be obliged to turn to him as the “second try” party in the House. On what grounds could he not? Mr. Duceppe might well decline the invitation. But the prospect of accepting it would be enormously tempting – if only for the historic irony.

We have to work hard to prevent this from happening by making sure we wake up to a Conservative majority May 3. It's more than just the coalition of the losers, it's about whether we want a united Canada or not. So you know what you must do! Quebecers and others vote Conservative May 2.

Remember this before you cast your ballot, Prime Minister Gilles Duceppe!!! Just picture that in your mind! Should set off alarm bells!

Some conventional journalists ridiculed this newspaper for pointing out that, in the English debate a day earlier, Ignatieff borrowed an image from Chairman Mao to accuse Stephen Harper of opposing democracy. But our point wasn’t that Ignatieff is a Maoist or thinks Harper a ghastly totalitarian. It’s that he considered Canadian democracy and Communist mass murder appropriate topics for a cute, ironic little cultural reference devoid of intellectual substance.The disquieting feeling many of us have about Ignatieff, and the elitist tribe who find him an attractive leader, is that they are rootless, not so much disloyal to Canada as strangers to the whole idea of patriotism and loyalty. That’s why it’s so troubling that on CSPAN on June 17, 2004, Ignatieff told an American audience, “You have to decide what kind of America you want. It’s your country just as much as it is mine.” This petty falsehood cheapened American citizenship as well as ours. The United States really is their country, whose anthem brings a tear to their eye and which they or their sons and daughters will die to defend. To Ignatieff it was just a visiting professorship. And he doesn’t grasp the difference. In The Rights Revolution in 2000, he called Canada “the place on earth that, if I needed one, I would call home.” But he doesn’t. And it shows.He can’t even offer the intellectual’s excuse for political unreliability that he owes higher allegiance as a citizen of the Republic of Truth, given his pattern of inconsistency. It’s as though the world of ideas is one more place he enjoys visiting but to which he feels no genuine loyalty. The problem isn’t just that he’s not from around here. He’s not from around anywhere. He’s totally unconnected, to Canada, the truth, his own words or anything else. You cannot trust such people. They’ll quote Mao and give your foreign policy to the Russians and not even mean it.

Couple that with Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe in the mix. Down right scary isn't it? That's exactly what'll happen if we don't elect a Conservative majority on May 2. If you want security and stability you know what to do. Let's get off our butts get out there and work hard otherwise May 3 we might wake up to something we can't do over. A Conservative majority is the only solution.

When Jack Layton came in from behind and delivered the head shot about Ignatieff’s low-attendance record at House of Commons votes, it shredded the Liberal spin job.Layton’s line revealed to voters that Ignatieff wasn’t just a visting professor to Canada. Ignatieff is just visiting when it comes to democracy.Ignatieff’s typical condescending response was he didn’t require any lessons on democracy from Layton. Iggy would be right about that if only Layton had been wrong about his assertion.Layton offered the data point — there’s that egghead language again, Iggy’s contagious — of 70%. He said Ignatieff missed 70% of the votes and in the real world when someone misses work 70% of the time, he shouldn’t expect a promotion.And so here’s Jack Layton, who according to the polls is more trusted by John and Mary Canadian Tire than Michael Ignatieff, saying Ignatieff is not prime minister-worthy because the visiting professor doesn’t even want to visit Parliament Hill.

Is Jack Layton wrong?Everyone agrees it was a great zinger. It can’t be great if it’s not based on the truth.Liberal Partisans say it’s not true. Their argument is laughable. Iggy did miss most of those votes. But he was trying to beef up his brand with bus tours and his first visits to those quaint little stores with pedestrian coffee and those greasy little things with the holes in the middle that would never be served at the Ignatieff villa in the south of France.Speaking of public housing, we know the Ignatieffs can’t stand the thought of living at the opposition residence, Stornoway. If he ever did manage to stage a coalition coup and become PM, would he and his wife hold their noses and “slum” it for a while by moving in to 24 Sussex?Would they at least visit once in a while for the photo ops?

That should make anyone think twice if they're think about voting for Michael Ignatieff and his Liberals. Jack Layton has it right "If most Canadians don't show up for work, they don't get a promotion" Way to go Jack!

Thursday, April 14, 2011

OTTAWA — Few people believe Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff will be able to follow through on his "Family Pack" platform promises, results of a new poll suggest.

Findings of the poll, conducted by Ipsos Reid exclusively for Postmedia News and Global National, show just 30 per cent of Canadians agree he will be able to implement his plans.Only eight per cent of respondents "strongly" agreed, while 22 per cent "somewhat" agreed when polled between April 5-7.However, it may not be Ignatieff's specific proposals that are the problem."(Voters) have lost confidence in government's ability to actually deliver on big promises," said Darrell Bricker, president of Ipsos Reid.But while the public sees this as "just another campaign promise," there is still the possibility Ignatieff can change public perception, Bricker added."Right now, he neither has the credibility personally, nor does his party, nor do the policy ideas, to really change people's perspectives on whether or not they should give more credence to what this leader and party are saying," he said.Along with Ignatieff's apparent lack of credibility, the long-gun registry is once again an issue resonating with voters, according to the survey's findings.Forty-three per cent of respondents agreed with the statement: "When I'm thinking about my vote this time, how my MP voted on the long-gun registry will be an important part of my decision."Sixteen per cent of respondents said they strongly agreed with the statement.

Oh,oh it also seems like Iffy and his party have a credibility problem but then again that's what you can expect from the Liberals. Promise all kinds of lofty pie in the sky stuff that they know will never be fulfilled and never mind how they're going to pay for it. They never follow through anyway.

Where as you know very well Conservatives make modest achievable promises that they almost always fulfill unless unforseen circumstances prevent them to do so.

So the choice is definately clear.

If you want the long gun registry scrapped, you know how to vote. At least that is acheivable and will save us money. The Liberal family pack on the other hand will cause us to spend more money that we don't have. Conservatives are the ONLY ones committed to scrapping this expensive useless program and.the only way to get it done is to vote for a Conservative majority.

Wednesday, April 13, 2011

Compas research asked who do you trust with your life and finances. Guess who came out on top.

Trust a politician with your money or your life?Canadians were asked which national political leader would they put faith in to, say, manage their family finances."Which one would make the best judge in a law court dealing with criminals? If a young friend of yours were serving with the armed forces in a battlefield in Afghanistan, which one of these leaders would you have preferred as unit commander in charge?" the COMPAS Research poll asked.The clear choice for battlefield commander went to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who drew 56% of the support, compared to 14% for Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff and 18% for NDP Leader Jack Layton.Harper was also deemed the better money manager and the best criminal court judge, although about one in four thought the nod should go to Layton.Another 10% believe Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe could be trusted to manage their money.Pollster Conrad Winn said he found this part of the poll fascinating."Family savings, you could say, is kind of a stand in for managing the economy," he said.

No surprise for me! It's actually a no brainer. Stephen Harper has proven to be someone who you CAN trust with your finances. Look how he steered us through the deepest recession in eighty years.

Trust him with your life,you betcha! He's changing the criminal justice system to make our streets safer and providing our military with the proper equipment they need to protect our sovereignty and keep us safe from those who wish to do us harm.

He's strong,decisive,shows real leadership and represents us very well in the world so why change the commander in the middle of the uncertain times that we are facing in the world?

Stephen Harper all the way! Let's keep him as Prime Minister and give him a majority! He's the real deal!

Tuesday, April 12, 2011

April 12th, 2011. He stood head and shoulders above the other men, easily. I have already seen it in my mind’s eye!!! He's able to get passed the drive by smears. He's a great manager of our country. He's the right man for the job!! Way to go, Stephen Harper!

Premier Ed Stelmach has blasted federal party leaders and candidates for “driving a wedge between Canadians” by pitting provinces and economic sectors against each other for short-term gain.In an open letter, Stelmach said the election campaign policy platforms of the parties would stifle growth in thriving economic sectors.“As a premier, my priority is to my province and its people,” he said in the letter, released by his office late Monday. “It is frustrating that, once again, campaign promises are being made that will hurt the West.“It is not new for Alberta to be in the crosshairs of federal political parties, but as our country moves out of the worst recession in 70 years, federal leaders should be looking to unite Canadians, not divide us.”Stelmach’s letter comes after both the Liberal and NDP parties suggested it was time to clean up oilsands developments and adopt cap-and-trade emissions reductions programs.Although Stelmach doesn’t mention any particular party, he suggests that the federal leaders should be looking at how the oilsands can help strengthen our country rather than divide it.“They should not be using this critical resource to try to drive a wedge between Canadians,” he wrote.Before Monday, the Alberta government had been mostly quiet on responding to the Liberal policies in the lead-up to the May 2 general election, other than having the premier’s spokesman say a cap-and-trade system “would hurt Albertans” and do little to reduce emissions.

Yup, the Libs and Dippers dividing Canadians again. You know "screw the west and we'll take the rest" attitude. What they don't realize is that the oil industry benefits not only the west but also the rest of Canada. Many come out to the oil patch to work and there are spin off business as result of the oilsands.

Why doesn't the Count and Jack Layton say the same things in Alberta as they do in Quebec? Hmmm..........could it be because they see the west as wasteland for votes and the most votes are in Ontario and Quebec?

What they purpose to do would hurt our whole economy. It means everyone pays more for everything. Besides the cap and trade plan they wouldn't hesitate to implement would be nothing more than wealth distribution where the most of the money would go to Quebec to appease Gilles to keep his support. Don't be fooled!!!

Monday, April 11, 2011

Roy Green on his show yesterday discussed exactly that with Ipsos Reid pollster John Wright,Kelly MacParland and Matt Gurney both from the National Post. It was a good discussion. They agree Conservatives have the advantage and couldn't understand why the Liberals would force this thing upon us.. They all agreed it would be best for the Liberal party if the Conservatives got a majority so they can rebuild from the ground up but they don't see anyone right now who could take up the mantle after Michael Ignatieff is gone.

They agreed nothing in this election so far has been inspiring so why are we having it? A really great discussion go have a listen at about the 9:50 mark.Sunday April10 @12:00pm

It is more than likely that if the Conservatives fall short of a majority come May 2, If you look at the policy platform of both the Liberals and the NDP you can't really tell the difference between them. It's all tax and spend. John Ivison in his column points that out.

The NDP leader boasted about what he would do as Prime Minister but his best chance of implementing many of these pledges is for Mr. Ignatieff to form government – either by winning a minority, or by coming second and defeating the Conservatives on their budget.Before he gets too cozy with the Liberal leader, Mr. Layton should look at the forlorn figure cut by Nick Clegg, the leader of Britain’s Liberal Democrats and deputy prime minister of a Conservative-Lib Dem coalition government. He is tightly bound to a Conservative Party driving unpopular spending cuts because to bring down the government would see the Lib Dems lose half their seats at the subsequent election.Much of the plan released Sunday will only ever exist in the imagination of the dreamers who believe the NDP might one day form government. But there are other some big ticket items that might see the light of day before too long.If Canadians take anything away from the NDP plan, they should note its similarity to the Liberal platform. And they should heed Jack Layton’s eagerness to collaborate. He and Mr. Ignatieff may not call it a coalition but it may walk and talk like one.

Joanne at BLY muses about other signs like the Liberal party postponing their party convention etc. Why?

This is the reality folks. It will be either a Coalition of the losers who will take our country down the path of Greece or a Conservative majority that will be stable, continue on with our recovery and bring prosperity. Which do you want?

I do not want my country being run by separatists. That's what will happen. The Libs and the NDP will need the support of the Bloc to stay in power. The bloc-mail will happen. More of your hard earned tax dollars will be going to appease the Bloc and it will never be enough.

For the betterment of the country the only option is a Conservative majority.

A week after various CTV reporters pressed PMSH to stop playing the coalition/hidden agenda card on Iggy, Roger Smith asks the PM if Canadians should fear that he has a hidden agenda to cut social programs.

The Liberal friendly media has already brought it out again. They've been doing this for the last what five/six elections?

The old "hidden agenda" card, why they're dragging it out, I don't know. It's old,tired and doesn't work anymore. Canadians have witnessed the last five years that PM Harper and the Conservatives DO NOT have a "hidden agenda." PM Harper has brought up repeatedly numerous times he's not going to pursue the abortion issue or the same sex marriage issue, or the death penalty etc.

Furthermore to Roger Smith's question about cutting social programs, PM Harper has already stated he's not going to do what the Liberals did in '90s which was cut transfer payments to the provinces for social programs etc. So where's the "hidden agenda?" Smells like desperation to me.

Saturday, April 9, 2011

We are in the midst of the 4th election in 7yrs. Stephen Harper and the Conservatives have been in office for five years in a minority government. Amazingly with all the obstruction and faux scandals coming from the opposition and the media they have been able to accomplish a remarkable amount on the behalf of Canadians.

Age of Consent Legislation– Raised from 14 to 16 effective May 1, 2008 (Link)

Agent Orange Compensation Package of $96 Million–$20,000 to all veterans and civilians who lived within 5 kilometers of CFB Gagetown in N.B.when Agent Orange was sprayed over a seven day period in 1966 and 1967 (Link)

Air India Final Report of the Commission of Inquiry– PM Harper apologies to the friends and relatives of all those who died in that disaster (Link)

Apology to Native People– By the Government of Canada on June 11, 2008 for residential school abuses (Link)

Arctic Sovereignty a Priority – One of the Harper gov’t's highest priority is the protection of Canada’s Arctic sovereignty (Link)

Auto Theft and Property Crime Bill– Legislation passed that would crack down on auto theft and trafficking in property that is obtained by crime (Link)

Child Pornography Reporting by Persons who Provide an Internet Service Act(C-22)
– by toughening laws that protect children from adult sexual predators by making it mandatory for Internet service suppliers to report such online actions (Link)

Chinese Head Tax Apology– By the government on June 22, 2006 (Link) (Link)

There is much more that can be done especially if we elect a Conservative majority. They released their five point platform yesterday "Here for Canada" and I encourage everyone to go and read it all. You can find it here.They have basically focused on five priorities.

The “Here for Canada” plan focuses on five key priorities:

Creating jobs through training, trade and low taxes.

Supporting families through our Family Tax Cut and more support for seniors and caregivers.

Eliminating the deficit by 2014-2015 by controlling spending and cutting waste.

Making our streets safe through new laws to protect children and the elderly.

Standing on guard for Canada by investing in the development of Canada’s North, cracking down on human smuggling and strengthening the Canadian Armed Forces.

It's a very good sound plan to move our country forward. You know what to do if you want this plan implemented.
That Conservative majority is achievable but we can't sit on our butts hoping for it to happen. We must get out there and work. Volunteer, donate,etc. Yes I know we're ahead but don't take that for granted. There is much work to be done. Remind voters of all the accomplishments that have been made and there can be much more done only if we elect a Conservative government. They others will spend us into oblivion and make our streets less safe.

Friday, April 8, 2011

Here’s the quiz in the form of a transcript from an interview my Corus Calgary colleague Dave Rutherford did with a Liberal candidate in the Alberta riding of Wild Rose, a former provincial judge. John Reilly has received the blessing of Michael Ignatieff, despite having seen what you are about to see right now.===Rutherford: You shouldn’t go to jail for a sex assault?Reilly: Well, you know, there are sexual assaults and there are sexual assaults.Rutherford: Sure?Reilly: And I had another young man, not a young offender, but a 19, 20-year-old. He’s at a party, there’s a lot of sexual innuendo, one of these women is being very aggressive with her boyfriend and they’re drinking a lot, the boyfriend passes out, she goes, gets into bed naked, he goes up, he’s thinking he’s going to be able to, that she’ll probably agree to have sex with him, he fondles her privates, and she wakes up and tells him to go away, and he goes away.They report it, he’s charged with (a) sexual offence, he has digitally penetrated her, the Crown prosecutor says this is a digital penetration of a woman’s vagina, he should go to jail for three years, that’s the starting point for this sexual offence.And I’m looking at this 20-year-old, socially inept young man, and his offence is a sexual assault and it’s one that they consider a major sexual assault because it involves digital penetration. I don’t think in those circumstances that what happened there should put that young man in a penitentiary for three years.Rutherford: Unless it’s your daughter, and then maybe you’ve got a whole other perspective! You haven’t mentioned the word “victim” once yet!Reilly: You know, I am concerned about victims, but what I’m concerned about is our society as a whole.

***************************************

There now. Wasn’t that easy? And it only took a minute of your precious time. Ignatieff’s response to the transcript was that he was offended by it, but not nearly offended enough to toss Reilly under the Liberal bus. He remains a candidate, but has since apologized.If you’re comfortable with the Liberal leader’s judgment, mark yourself down as an Ignatieff Liberal. Now you might be an NDPer. But what you are not is a conservative. I can tell you that without the assistance of CBC-friendly professors.

David Akin has done some digging on the Liberal candidate and points out Michael Ignatieff would not fire Reilly that an apology was good enough. The former judge has a record.

Reilly has had his sentences overturned at least three times by the Alberta Court of Appeal and was criticized by the high court in at least two.

Liberals say they are for women. Well Liberal women should think twice before they cast a vote for the Liberal party if this is the kind of candidate they have. Where are the Liberal female candidates? Why are they not speaking out? Reilly no where in that interview expressed any kind of sympathy for the female victim. If the Count won't fire him,it speaks to the Liberal mindset.

Thursday, April 7, 2011

Forty-nine per cent of those interviewed by Nanos Research for The Globe and Mail and CTV had a negative or somewhat negative reaction when asked what they thought of “the idea of a coalition government.” Forty per cent viewed the idea positively or somewhat positively, while 12 per cent weren’t sure.Even some of those who plan to vote for other than the Conservatives reject the idea of a coalition. Eighteen per cent of Liberal supporters and 19 per cent of NDP supporters said they were definitely opposed.“Even among Liberals, one out of five has a negative impression of a coalition,” pollster Nik Nanos observed. “Those are the people Mr. Harper’s going after.”

Nanos breaks it down here.
So there you go. Canadians clearly don't like the idea of a coalition government. The only way to prevent a coalition of the losers is to return PM Harper and his Conservatives with a clear majority otherwise even though the majority of Canadians are opposed to one the Libs/NDP/Bloc they will not hesitate to seize power.

Besides the Bloc would hold a great deal of influence in that kind of a situation and I don't think it would sit very well in Canada.

(Quebec) The first passage to Quebec Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff, campaigning was marked by a boondoggle that has angered activists and plunged into the embarrassment of local organizers.

. Happy cheer "their" leader of the LPC and candidates in the region, a dozen Liberal supporters were turned away Tuesday at the doors of the Crossroads Community Charlesbourg. Le ton a monté, selon des témoins. Became heated, according to witnesses. They had to turn back, their signs under his arm, unable to express their supportMr. Ignatieff - who has remained in Quebec for a few hours - and the Liberal team. The latest poll puts the PLC Segma to 14% in the polls in Quebec.. Similarly, a dozen media representatives from Quebec - journalists, cameramen and photographers - were denied access to Carrefour where Mr. Ignatieff met with community groups. . Only journalists who follow the Pan Canadian register. . Lucky few have managed to get through.. Local organizers of the PLC, unable to justify this approach, hiding their evil malaise, their incomprehension and disapproval... Especially since the leader did not hold a press conference in Quebec City because he had already answered questions earlier in the day ... Newfoundland."We made another big [press briefing] tomorrow morning in Compton [Townships], and you're welcome everyone," said Michel Liboiron, chief press secretary.The refusal to let journalists and local activists was explained by a lack of space inside. Representatives of community groups have asked to limit the amount of people inside. "If it's a communication problem, we will try to manage it," said Liboiron.Run its course, the organization agreed that the leader answer a few questions from area media. Liberal candidates in the capital brought about.

The Liberal leader has promised that he would first go back to Quebec by the end of the campaign. "We do not drop your arms," ​​he assures. We're here to win. "

Why won't the media talk about that incident? Guess it might be embarrassing for the Liberals. Here's another one hat tip again to David Akin. If PM Harper were shunned like that, it would make top news for all of the campaign.

My favourite honest moment on the Ignatieff tour happened last week in Winnipeg. Ignatieff had shown up at Kelekis, the famous Winnipeg diner, and the usual crowd of regulars was inside, perhaps unaware the Liberal leader and a horde of journalists were about to upset their lunch break.Ignatieff gamely went around and introduced himself to the diners. One old gent was having none of Iggy’s friendliness, telling the Liberal leader he was “wasting my money.”A table full of grumpy old bowlers called the Liberal leader “an a--hole” loudly enough that our reporter travelling with Iggy could clearly hear their displeasure.Undeterred, Iggy turned to another man. “Come here often?” Ignatieff asked.“No, and I probably won’t be back now,” the man replied.Tough crowd. You can almost hear Ignatieff mutter, “Right. I’ll put you down as undecided.”

MSM where are you? Shame on you!!! All we ask for is some balance.
For a nice change PM Harper met with ethnic media to answer some real questions.What a difference! The national media could learn something.

Update:Check out Smalldeadanimals. "The First American Prime Minister, With White Supremacists"

Pay attention if you want to but, frankly, they don’t really mean anything,” sums up Andre Turcotte, a pollster and communications professor at Carleton University.He has even more pointed advice for news organizations that breathlessly report minor fluctuations in polling numbers: “You should really consider what is the basis for your addiction and maybe enter a ten-step program.”And for fellow pollsters who provide the almost daily fix for media junkies: “I think pollsters should reflect on what this does to our industry. It cheapens it.”Turcotte’s blunt assessment is widely shared by fellow pollsters, including those who help feed the media addiction to political horse race numbers.

Methodology can differ from pollster to pollster and there is also an unhealthy relationship with the media.

There’s broad consensus among pollsters that proliferating political polls suffer from a combination of methodological problems, commercial pressures and an unhealthy relationship with the media.

The problem is exacerbated by what Gregg calls an “unholy alliance” with the media. Reporters have “an inherent bias in creating news out of what is methodologically not news.” And pollsters have little interest in taming the media’s penchant for hype because they won’t get quoted repeatedly saying their data shows no statistically significant change.“In fact, they do the exact opposite. They will give quotes, chapter and verse, and basically reverse and eat themselves the next week,” says Gregg.

Be wary of the"margin of error."

The MOE, as it’s known in the biz, is usually relegated to the tag line at the end of a poll story, advising that the survey is considered accurate within plus or minus so many percentage points, 19 times in 20. It’s rarely explained what that really means.

Take a poll that suggests Tory support stands at 35 per cent, the Liberals at 30. If the MOE is, say, 2 percentage points, that means Tory support could be as high as 37 and the Liberals as low as 28, a nine-point gap. Or the Tories could be as low as 33 and the Liberals as high as 32, a one-point gap.If support falls within those ranges the following week, it should be reported as no change — but rarely is. A two or three point change is more likely to be touted as one party surging or the other collapsing.Worse, the media often trumpet shifts in provinces or other small sub-samples of the population, like urban women or educated males. But with MOEs of as much as 10 percentage points, seemingly huge 20-point fluctuations are actually statistically meaningless.“I’ve seen pollsters comment one week, you know, ‘The Tories are dead in Quebec’ only to have this magical resurrection the week after and there’s a pressure to sort of explain that and you come up with saying, ‘You know, well, (Prime Minister Stephen Harper) made this statement or he wore this tie,’” says Mukerji.“I think if you take a step back and look at the general trend, there hasn’t actually been all that much that’s changed, quite frankly, in the party standings.”

Even the Liberals own pollster weighs in.

With little or no time between polls and the media fixated on the flood of horse race numbers, he says voters don’t get a chance to reflect on platforms or leaders or their campaign messages. Hence, “the only movement in the polls is in fact motivated by the previous polls.”Polls have always had some influence on elections, helping to drive strategic voting. But Marzolini fears the sheer volume now is creating a situation in which the media — and, by extension, voters, — “just want to get the score for the game; they don’t want to watch the game.”

So yeah, polls can be fun but focus your attention on the issues. Probably a more accurate and true account of what is going on is listen to what is happening from the local ground war. Look passed the what the media reports and read and listen to the candidates actual words. Then vote accordingly.

It’s hard to find a single plank of the Liberal position on the F-35s that doesn’t creak with empty talk and insincerity. The Liberals say they would immediately cancel the purchase and think about it again later. They can’t say when. They promise they would “save billions of dollars”, but can’t say how. They say they will “put further steps on hold during a review of all military procurement,” which means more delay and more uncertainty for the forces. They promise any future purchases — when they get around to it — would undergo a “transparent competitive process to procure equipment that best suits our needs,” without spelling out what they see as Canada’s “needs.”We’ve been here before, of course. Jean Chretien campaigned for the 1993 election on a promise to cancel the Conservatives’ $4.8 billion purchase of replacement helicopters for the military’s decrepit Sea Kings. Like Ignatieff, he claimed they were too expensive and unnecessary. Once elected, he carried out the promise, paying $500 million in penalties and dooming Canadian troops to two more decades aboard dangerous aircraft that spend as much time being repaired as they do in the air. Chretien could never admit the mistake, of course, so it wasn’t until he left office that Paul Martin could place the same $5 billion order for new helicopters.Ignatieff is in the same position, and for the same reason. The new party platform concentrates on supporting UN operations and promises a “new leadership role in peace operations,” the same puffery used by previous Liberals governments to justify starving the forces. “Peacekeeping” means sending troops to areas where they won’t have to fight, and might not even have to be armed. The UN has been “peacekeeping” in the Congo through years of slaughter, doing nothing to halt the horrors there. It did nothing to avert similar bloodshed in Rwanda or Darfur.“Peacekeeping” is a pleasant code word that hides the Liberal intent to save money by cutting back again on the military. There is nothing wrong with that, if, and it’s a big if, the party is willing to be open and honest about its policy and its implications, and let Canadians pass judgement. But it’s not. Like Trudeau and Chretien, Ignatieff isn’t willing to have that debate, so he hides behind spurious claims about the high cost of jet planes and pledges to look for a better deal. He knows, (or should know) that cancelling the F-35 purchase means cancelling any purchase for years to come. Like Chretien, he could never admit the decision was a mistake, so no new plane would be ordered for the life of an Ignatieff government.

The Liberals’ policy on the military is to have no policy, and hope no one notices. Mr. Ignatieff has a weakness for tough talk (“Mr. Harper, your time is up.” “Anywhere, any time”), but he plainly lacks the nerve for this debate.

They do indeed have a hidden agenda as far as the military is concerned. Another embarrassing decade of darkness.
The world is becoming an increasing dangerous place. In order to punch our weight in the world and to have a safe secure nation we need a military that is properly equipped to do their job. A strong safe nation requires a strong military. Vote for a Conservative majority government so that our military is kept properly equipped so that they can keep us safe and are able to carry out what is required of them in the world.

Whether he succeeds depends on whether you believe that Canada should return to its Trudeauesque past of increased social spending paid for by higher taxes on corporations and the wealthy, or continue the Conservative emphasis on keeping taxes low while balancing the books.

The Liberal platform is a remarkable document. It has the feel of catharsis to it: a party that was unsure of what it believed, or unwilling to say, finally finding a sense of direction and boldly declaring where it wants to take the country. And where it wants to take the country is back to the 1970s.

CALGARY - Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff hatched plans Sunday that could kill Canada's golden goose - the Western oil patch.Ignatieff proposed a new, national cap-and-trade scheme to reduce carbon emissions that one economist estimates will cost Alberta's economy $30 billion.It comes at a time when Canada's resource-rich western provinces are driving much of the nation's growth.

How do you spell National Energy Program?
I remember how the NEP really hurt Alberta. There were foreclosures, bankruptcies,etc. It took a long time to recover.

OTTAWA — The Liberals plan is missing billions of dollars in projected spending, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said Sunday afternoon in Toronto.“There are some items that are not mentioned at all that Mr. Ignatieff has committed himself to. One is the HST in Quebec, and the payment for that. There is no mention of the high speed rail promise which he has made which is billions of dollars in addition to the $10 billion plus that I’ve already mentioned. There is no costing for pharmacare at all in the budget, in the proposed spending items that Mr. Ignatieff has listed,” Flaherty told reporters.“There is no free lunch and somehow they’ve got to find billions and billions of dollars in new spending in the Liberals tax and spend plan,” he said.

So do you want to go back to the future with big government spending programs with Liberals and their coalition partners or move forward with the Conservatives with low taxes and job creation to make the country a more prosperous country?

I think the choice is clear, vote for a Conservative majority on May 2nd.

Sunday, April 3, 2011

Just think, the Liberal leader as Mary Poppins the ultimate nanny. Yuck!!! He wants to impose a national daycare program that is so 1993 when it was first introduced in the Liberal Red Book. He claims it would only cost $500 million but others say it really cost more like $10 billion a year.

While the Liberals have often complained that the Conservative program of giving parents a $100 monthly payment for each child under six is not enough, the truth is that program costs five times what Ignatieff is now offering. The Universal Child Care Benefit cost taxpayers $2.6 billion last year. Ignatieff is promising to do more with just $500 million.Advocates of a national program claim it will cost about $10 billion per year, 20 times what Ignatieff is offering. Given that Quebec alone spends more than $1 billion a year on their government-run daycare program, a national system of the type Liberals and daycare activists have called for would likely cost much more.

This program would just end up being a big government bureaucratic nightmare of a boondoggle. Can you say gun registry program anyone?The money would simply go to unionized bureaucrats and daycare workers and not actually going to care for the children at all.

The count says that's what parents want. Nonsense.

A poll of 2,000 Canadians, taken by Fleishman-Hillard in 2006, showed that by far families would prefer to have one parent stay at home. The poll was taken at the height of the debate over replacing the Liberal plan for a national system with the Conservative plan for the $100-per-month cheques.When asked what was best for children, 77.9% of Canadians said having a parent stay home with a child vs. 20.5% who said it was best if the child was looked after by a competent caregiver. When asked what was best for children if both parents had to work, 52.7% said having a relative look after the child followed by using a family-run daycare at 20.4%.

Conservatives have the best plan that allows choice for parents. That's the way it should be. Children need at least one parent at home during the formative years.

If you want parents to have choice then you have no alternative. Vote for a Conservative majority, they are the only ones who will make sure parents have choice. The other alternative is Count Ignatieff Liberal/NDP/Bloc coalition and a bloated big government nanny state.No thanks!!!!

Saturday, April 2, 2011

So the Liberal leader promises childcare,senior care,will pay for your child's post secondary education etc. A billion here, a billion there. What's his plan to pay for these big government programs? He's going to raise corporate taxes. Will that be enough money to pay for what he wants to give Canadians? Well,it seems like there won't be enough change in the piggybank.
I think he should listen to Jack Mintz,Director of School Public Policy,University of Calgary on the Dave Rutherford show yesterday.

Friday, April 1, 2011

OTTAWA — A majority Conservative government would turn off the per-vote subsidy tap, saving taxpayers nearly $30 million a year, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Friday.Harper said it’s time for political parties to be weaned off taxpayer dependence and raise money on their own without drinking from the public trough.In 2010, political parties sucked $27 million from public coffers. The Conservatives received the most ($10.4 million), followed by the Liberals ($7.3 million), NDP ($5 million) and the separatist Bloc ($2.8 million).Taxpayers handed $1.9 million to the Green Party and it has no seats in Parliament.In 2008, the Harper Conservatives planned to end the subsidy, but that sent the opposition parties into a frenzy and sparked the coalition partnership between the Liberals, Bloc and NDP.Parties are eligible for the subsidy, provided they win at least 2% of the national popular vote.

I agree. Why should we be forced to donate to parties that we don't agree with? It simply isn't fair. Political parties should learn to fund raise on their own. Sink or swim. Above all why should we be forced to fund a party that that hates the ROC and want's to separate?

If we want to this tax to end we have to vote for a Conservative majority government on voting day.